• Bob Cornuke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a colleague of Dr. Robert (Bob) Cornuke. The information contained in the Wikipedia article "Bob Cornuke" is full of personal "opinons" and remarks that has been and continues to this day to be damaging the career of Dr. Cornuke. If you carefully read the article, it is a full scale attack on everything that Dr. Cornuke has ever done. The articles that are presented of peoples "opinions" have been cleverly weaved to paint Dr. Cornuke in a highly unfavorable light. This article has directly caused Dr. Cornuke financial loss. Dr. Cornuke has been contacted for speaking engagements over the years, only to have them cancelled when they read the article in Wikipedia. Instead of this article being one that is biographical in nature only, it is a total assault on Dr. Cornukes character, research and professionalism. I am upset that Wikipedia even allows this type of character assassination to be on their site. Please consider removing this article, for the sake of journalistic integrity and fairness.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jeffrey Harbuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us. That said, the article could use some cleanup. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think this complaint deserves a better response than this. Yes, the subject lacks academic credentials, and yes, his claims are fringe. But this article deviates greatly from a neutral point of view, and draws heavily from proselytizing sites for criticism. I'm going to stub it down the the reliable sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xymmax, great job on the cleanup. I did some myself but the numerous problems with the article became mind-numbing. Czoal (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that you have put Bob's name as "Dr" Bob shows your prejudice. You say "If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us." There is that "unaccredited" word you use so often. You are assuming that that is why people are doing that, with absolutely no basis or information proving that. Do you know the difference between and unaccredited institute and an accredited institute? Your use of the word unaccredited demeans the work of those institutions. Many colleges do not seek accreditation because they must comply with government regulations, which in the case of many seminaries and Bible schools, go against their fundamental teachings and beliefs. You seem to use the term "unaccredited" quite often and your intent implies an insult. The fact that people have cancelled speaking engagements for Bob Cornuke as a direct result of looking at your information on Wikipedia is very important, although you seem to dismiss it. The entire article is slanted and unflattering to Dr. Cornuke. It is laced with personal opinions and insults. That is why the people have uninvited him to speak at several places. They have all said it was because of the negative information that they saw about him on Wikipedia. This should not be a difficult thing to do. Write a journalistic report on him, if you will. Remove the insults, the negative accusations, the inferences and the quotes from people who disagree with him. This is tabloid and you should "have a serious concern" how damaging this is to the career and income of Dr. Cornuke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that you have put Bob's name as "Dr" Bob shows your prejudice. You say "If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us." There is that "unaccredited" word you use so often. You are assuming that that is why people are doing that, with absolutely no basis or information proving that. Do you know the difference between and unaccredited institute and an accredited institute? Your use of the word unaccredited demeans the work of those institutions. Many colleges do not seek accreditation because they must comply with government regulations, which in the case of many seminaries and Bible schools, go against their fundamental teachings and beliefs. You seem to use the term "unaccredited" quite often and your intent implies an insult. The fact that people have cancelled speaking engagements for Bob Cornuke as a direct result of looking at your information on Wikipedia is very important, although you seem to dismiss it. The entire article is slanted and unflattering to Dr. Cornuke. It is laced with personal opinions and insults. That is why the people have uninvited him to speak at several places. They have all said it was because of the negative information that they saw about him on Wikipedia. This should not be a difficult thing to do. Write a journalistic report on him, if you will. Remove the insults, the negative accusations, the inferences and the quotes from people who disagree with him. This is tabloid and you should "have a serious concern" how damaging this is to the career and income of Dr. Cornuke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quint Studer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there. I am seeking help reviewing some changes for businessman Quint Studer's article and also to see whether the {{POV}} tag can now be removed from that article. Since editors from here have previously commented on the page, I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to look again? I'm proposing two drafts: one focuses on Studer's investments and the other details his baseball team ownership. Similar content had previously been in the article, but was inadvertently edited out as other improvements were made. There have been no responses to my Talk page message, so I'm hoping an editor here can take a look. I will not edit the article myself, because I wrote the drafts as a paid consultant to The Studer Group, Studer's company. Regarding the tag, I'd originally added it some months back due to concerns about the article's tone and content (this is the only direct edit I've made and will make to the article). Since then, editors have made a number of improvements that I feel have fully addressed those concerns. I'd love for someone from here to take a look and see whether it would be appropriate to remove it now. All input is welcome, and I'll be watching the article's Talk page. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of Studer prior to reading the article just now, but it appears to be an over-the-top résumé essentially being used as a promotional piece. It seems like a good portion of the content should be removed. So, no, I don't feel the POV template should be removed. Czoal (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It still reeks of puffery and self-adulation. It is possible there is a salvageable article under the detritus, but I'm not sure. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. These are not the responses I was hoping for, of course, especially since any changes I've proposed for the article previously have been reviewed by a number of editors (including the main Career section being the subject of an RfC). Despite that, I do appreciate you taking the time to look. I've written a more detailed response to Czoal's note on the Talk page, and I invite you both (and any other editors) to continue discussions there. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article, Dorian Electra, while looking at the entry for Shimer College.

This individual does not appear to be particularly notable. It appears that she is a college student who made a moderately popular youtube video in 2012. The page is an extensive resume including the high school she went to. I believe this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.209.4 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should nominate it for deletion, there doesn't seem to be a BLP issue in your discussion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if someone would drop by Dinesh Singh (academic). In the past few days, that article has doubled in size, with content exclusively added to the "Controversies..." section. It does not appear to be neutrally worded, and could use some work. Sławomir
Biały 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You know something's wrong when AFAICT the "Controversies" section on a BLP makes up most of the article! Everymorning (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Undoubtedly, there should be some summary of prominent controversies, since there are lots of good sources. But at the moment, it's mostly an undigested mass of name-calling, giving a voice to everyone with an axe to grind. I did my best in the past to cull some of the more egregious content a few months back, but the latest round of edits have undone those, and added far more. It's gotten beyond my own ability to summarize things neutrally. I feel like a better understanding of Indian politics and culture would be helpful. Sławomir
Biały 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bluelinks David Cameron twice. The basis is what appears to be a single anonymous allegation, and a non-anonymous denial by a person in that society, that Cameron was a member. I suggest that if he is kept as a prominent member (alleged) in a table, that the table should also include the counter claim (cited) that he was not a member. Or if the later (second) bluelink for him is kept, that the bluelink in the table is then redundant. Ought a questionable allegation be given such prominence in this manner - listing himtwice? Collect (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is "alleged" members. Whether that's a good idea in general is an open question, I suppose. But there's no reason to worry about Cameron any more than about the others -- especially given the extent of sourcing about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate issues. Is "alleged membership" in any society a "contentious claim" in esse. If so, then the article has major problems from the start. Second is - under what circumstances should we bluelink a living person where the basis is an "allegation" by an anonymous person in the first instance? Collect (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read a list List of Javanese people, and I found a name, Ahmad Dhani, which I found disputable to enter this list.

I'm sorry I haven't got a written proof to mention here, but I've heard himself (Ahmad Dhani) saying that he is a Sundanese. In his words, it said that "Saya orang Sunda yang kesasar di Surabaya" (meaning "I am a Sundanese who got lost in Surabaya (East Java)"). He said in X-Factor singing contest, aired in television in 2015.

It is true that he speaks Javanese, and I haven't heard or read anywhere that he spoke Sundanese or wrote in Sundanese, but I don't think that it can overrule the fact that he a Sundanese descent, not a Javanese.

The article Ahmad Dhani has correctly written that he is a Sundanese.

I want to erase the name from the list and move it to the article List of Sundanese people, but I don't think it is polite or conforming to Wikipedia rules, so I write in this talk page.

Djauhari136 (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Djauhari136[reply]

Most wiki editors do not care, when you are not based in the USA you do not count to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.87.159.65 (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Mr. Khawaja Asif's page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawaja_Muhammad_Asif

1. Educational info is incorrect; He attended Government College University, Lahore (BA in History and Politics), he attended Punjab University (LLB). He did not study business administration, he did not attend the LSE, and he does not have a masters degree. Educational data can be confirmed from his nomination papers submitted to Election Commission of Pakistan (cited on the Wikipedia page for Mr. Asif) http://ecp.gov.pk/ScanNF/RECORD%20OF%20RETURNED%20CANDIDATES%20WITH%20ANNEXURES/NATIONAL_ASSEMBLY/GENERAL%20SEATS/NA-110/KHAWAJA%20MOHAMMAD%20ASIF.PDF

2. He is not a "conservative thinker". No citation has been provided for said distinction.

2. News article given as source for "Differences seemed to develop between Khwaja Asif and Nawaz Sharif when he offered to resign alleging that he did not have control over his own ministry.[4]" is speculative, and does not belong in biographical data.

3. His ties to the PMLN go back to his days as a young political activist during his father's political career. Any claim regarding his relationship with Mr. Agha Hassan Abedi is speculative, and without citation.

4. His first job in the UAE was not at BCCI. His career in banking also preceded that relocation.

5. He returned to Pakistan and won his first election prior to his father's death

6. He contested his first National Assembly election in 1993, from which point on he has been the representative of NA-100 till the present day.

Said changes have been made by me, but few have taken effect. Although the biography section of the main page has removed the mention of LSE and the master degree, the same correction has not taken effect in the summary box on the right of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.28.174 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled {{adminhelp}} since this doesn't need immediate admin attention. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Coia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to me to be non-notable, but the BLP seems also to be a hook for a commercial site which is the subject of a current AfD. Is he actually notable? Should his self-published material be used as links? Collect (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though most of the cites are SPS and Italian Wikipedia? Google finds all of 139 pages total with his name. His "news cites" are essentially all Italian. His name appears in precisely zero books. Zero mentions in the entire NYT archives. On what exact basis is he "notable" pray tell? Sources hosted by Wordpress? Collect (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

although perhaps I would support the english wikipedia having some sign of notability in the English speaking world as a guideline, that is not the current situation. Foreign language source are just fine for showing notability. But if they are all SPS/non-RS, that is an issue, especially as this is a BLP where those sources are likely out of bounds all together (except for the ones he published himself, which certainly don't contribute to notablity). Quickly scanning the currently used refs I'd say 2 or 3 of them meet RS. That is fairly borderline. Its enough to avoid a speedy, but I wouldn't object to it being taken to AFD to see what a wider audience thinks. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maryedith Burrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maryedith Burrell divorced Peter Bergman in 2011, before his death. Peter's daughter, Lily Oscar Bergman, is no longer Ms. Burrell's daughter. The adult adoption of Lily Oscar Bergman is in the process of being reversed.

Maryedith Burrell received an Mastersfrom the University of North Carolina, Asheville, USA in 2012. Her one-woman show, #OUCH!, a comedy about the perils of the American Health Care system is currently touring. She continues to write screenplays, fiction and non-fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.172.139 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source for the absolute reversal of the adult adoption - then we could use this tidbit. It is not a simple process to reverse the adoption by a deceased person, if I recall correctly. Collect (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect of a biographical article that it at least give a subject's place and date of birth, and some summary of the person's background and personal life. The article on Frances Cress Welsing says very little about the woman herself, only about her theories,which appear to be largely psudoscientific. In my opinion this article needs to be much augmented before it will be truly worthy to be included in Wikipedia.Lukasiwicz (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Conway Redding[reply]

Having an imperfect article in place encourages people to enhance it; few of our articles are actually "complete". (And this article does indeed have her date of birth in it, in the very first sentence, but not knowing the place of someone's birth is not sufficient reason to not have an article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out this bio. I much enjoyed all of it, and I fully relate.185.87.159.65 (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Genocchio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am asking for editors and admins to view Benjamin Genocchio's BLP. Please review my edits. I am being accused of having a COI. I was hired to help the subject of this BLP whose page was being vandalized to bring it into accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I am not a PR firm. I am a Wikipedia editor who is sometimes paid to help improve articles while abiding by all guidelines at all times. Please read the article. I look forward to discussing this on the talk page and thank you in advance. Please see here for additional information regarding issues with this page Penelope1114 (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll simply have to abide by the relevant terms for paid editors. If you continue to try to edit the article without having done this, you'll likely end up blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, you have an inherent COI as a paid editor, and must abide by WP:TOU and WP:COI. BMK (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One other point - personally I don't think your user page paid editing disclosure goes far enough. You need to list the articles that you have been paid to edit so that they can easily be scrutinised.--ukexpat (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Anglin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clarence Anglin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The History Channel documentary shows possible updates of the brothers duo's living status. Is the documentary reliable or not? --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I watched an hour of the documentary last night waiting for "hard evidence" that the Anglins made it out of the Bay alive. There was none. After the nephews started presenting various conditions for their claims (i.e. using their own analysts), I decided I wasn't about to get sucked in for another hour of the same. This is like the JFK conspiracy shows were the "researchers" make fabulous claims and use experts sympathetic to their own POV. If appropriate weight is given, I have no objections to using secondary sources that discuss the show and its claims (which in turn should be presented with attribution). As I see it, the two articles above do not give proper weight. (Here is a good review of the show from Variety. Sarah D. Bunting's review is here; it looks like I was able to put up with it three times longer that she did!) - Location (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) edited 20:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi should explain this then. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I watched it as well. The entire two hours. And the forensic experts enlisted by the US Marshal Service and FBI concluded that the two in the photo were the Anglin brothers. Sorry you didn't watch it all. The conclusion was quite compelling and both the FBI and US Marshal are likely going to investigate further based on the evidence presented. There was talk of extradition possibilities. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk is talk and I did not find it the least bit compelling. I've seen enough shows like this to know that Roderick's hand-picked expert would state just what the papers said he stated (i.e. that it was "highly likely" the people in the photo were the Anglin brothers). The Widners and Roderick have been talking about this stuff for about three years, and The History Channel doesn't have a show if someone like Dyke calls "bullshit". Given the conditions the Widners put on everything, Dyke was more gracious than he need to be... or at least he did a good job pretending to be. Here is what he has to say today about the photo:

"I can't say yes or no on it," U.S. Marshal Michael Dyke, based in Oakland, said in an interview. "I've seen the picture. I'm doing analysis on the photo as we speak and having the FBI look at it. The important thing is to not draw any conclusions as it hasn't been vetted through regular investigative channels."[1]

Let's not be so gullible. - Location (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a reliable source to support a mention of the nephews' claims... I would wait until it's been vetted by a broader array of sources before considering it worthy of inclusion, however. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the sources, I think it merits inclusion, but we should be very careful not to state in wiki-voice that the photo is authentic or that the photo is of the brothers; that should be attributed to the experts used by The History Channel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I agree. BTW, I changed the article to state "likely" because that is what the citation given notes. I think "highly likely" is what is noted in two tabloids, the Daily Mail and NY Post. - Location (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of the History Channel is, to put it as charitably as possible, "mixed." Our own article states it well: "the network is frequently criticized by scientists, historians, and skeptics for broadcasting pseudo-documentaries, unsubstantiated and sensational investigative programming." Per WP:REDFLAG we should use History Channel in cases like this only with great caution, while also taking into account WP:WEIGHT and other policies. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts, Winkelvi? George Ho (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe the correct spelling to Arto lindsay in this article is Arturo Lindsay, a fellow Atlantan artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.209.185 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that is his nickname. See Arto Lindsay - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Downie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sir or Madam, I have deleted false, libelous material several times from the page "Richard Downie"--and it continues to reappear. The material that keeps appearing cites an article (ref 3) that further cites an informal investigation (ref 4). This actual report (contained within ref 4) does not actually support his statements. In fact the investigating officer's conclusions in the actual report contained in ref 4 are: “The Director of the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS) directed an investigation into allegations of a hostile work environment, mismanagement, resource discrepancies and racial prejudice raised by[Name Masked]. After extensive review into these allegations, I find that the center’s leadership has not violated any laws or Department of Defense regulations, has not acted unethically towards its employees, and has maintained good order and conduct expected in an organization in the Department of Defense.”

In short, this individual keeps stressing his own allegations that there was mismanagement – – but the actual findings of the report he cites do not support his allegations. His claim of "controversy" is based on his own personal agenda--not that of the investigating officer--as he claims falsely.

Please note the following: The graduate of a military academy whose motto is “Duty, Honor, Country,” Downie's tenure at CHDS was a time of controversy over human rights, free speech and other management issues, including recurring senior staff involvement in acts of racism, sexism and homophobia in what many employees said was a "hostile work environment for those not within the inner circle" that was also riddled with favoritism. (See AR16-5 report cited below.) In late 2014 the then-Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), asked for a Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) investigation of CHDS, one of DoD's five international regional centers, focusing on events going back as far as 2008.[2][3][4]

Similarly, later in the paper he adds: It was under Downie, the informal AR 15-6 investigation showed, that: "Many current and former employees feel that a hostile work environment exists due to an underlying atmosphere of favoritism towards certain current and former employees ... Another aspect that may contribute to the perception of a hostile work environment according to some employees is the lack of dialogue between the Director (Downie) and the faculty and staff. ... Most employees felt that to raise any issues would result in retribution or even termination."[22]

At the same time as McClatchy broke the Garcia Covarrubias story, in "Flagship military university hired foreign officers linked to human rights abuses in Latin America," The Center for Public Integrity revealed that a nonpublic report in 2012 by a U.S. Army colonel appointed by Downie himself, ostensibly to head off an Inspector General investigation already requested in 2009 and then again in 2011, "concluded that 'a hostile work environment exists' at CHDS; that its staff had displayed 'a lack of sensitivity towards the use of derogatory language'; and many employees felt its leaders routinely retaliated against those who questioned them. The report, obtained by CPI under the Freedom of Information Act, depicted a sort of frat-house atmosphere at the Center. It stated that staff had exchanged 'racially charged emails' — including one directed at President Barack Obama; used offensive language such as 'faggot,' 'buttboy' and 'homo'; and that 'women employees feel that they are treated inappropriately.' Even senior leaders used 'inappropriate hand gestures,' it said, and mentioned simulations of masturbation."[21]--Reference 4 repeated

Request this user be blocked from further libelous posts on this page. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, Richard Downie

I did a bit of trimming but this needs to be thoroughly looked over by someone who has a bit more time than I do right now. Parts of the text are pretty POV, some of the info is not supported by the sources. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardDDownie2: Thanks for bringing this up here, I have only taken a quick look but it does appear that parts of the are not neutrally worded or properly sourced. Posting here should help get these issues fixed.

As an aside, if you are Richard Downie or have a connection to him, please read WP:COI and WP:NLT - if that's the case, it would be best to focus on bringing other editors attention to problems (as you've done here) rather than editing the article yourself, and to avoid characterizing the article or other editors as libelous. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will concur that this needs the attention of someone with time. I found claims not in sources, reliance on sources that do not mention the subjects. Eyes on this would be appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe has declared that Palmer's hunt that led to the death of Cecil was legal and in order and he faces no charges.[2]. There is no reason to mention other hunts by Palmer as they are unrelated to Cecil (the article's subject) and the hunt that ended his life. It is also now known to be false that Zimbabwe sought extradition. They did not seek it as is stated in the latest news release and fairly obvious since the US has extradition treaty with Zimbabwe. Palmer's role is that he was the big game hunter that complied with Zimbabwe's laws and did nothing unlawful. The article should not contain any innuendo or coatrack material that he did anything unlawful. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edit here and I agree that it's inappropriate to add purported "prior bad acts" in an effort to somehow taint this separate issue. I've watchlisted the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The issue is mostly with the article pretending to be about a lion when the notable subject that all the reliable sources have covered is the Killing of Cecil the lion. the page should be moved back. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been listed for move to "Death of Cecil the lion" on the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is fascinating -- Palmer is now the victim of "Cecil". I'm trying to form a thought -- can't quite put my finger on it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Palmer is not the victim of Cecil. Rather he did nothing illegal and is the victim of gossip and social media feeding frenzy where a number of things have been proven false. We generally don't drag BLP1E living people through the mud especially regarding crimes that are later proven false. We don't even drag them through the mud and clean them off by stating their innocence after writing how many awful things he did and how many charges he faced. The public response to Palmer is fair coverage in the article. Claiming the Zimbabwean government was proceeding to extradite him for a crime is not as that is false. No crime, no proceedings, no extradition. There was no crime to initiate proceedings and that fact became known this week. Palmer's previous hunts have no bearing on the killing of Cecil in any way - that story is a COATRACK item. --DHeyward (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Zimbabwean government initiated proceedings to extradite him. That is literally, factually correct. The first step is to get the prosecutor general to confirm that they will bring a case. However, the prosecutor general determined that there was no evidence they could charge Palmer on, and advised the minister of this. For that reason, extradition did not happen. It is still correct that the government intended to have him extradited, and are on the record saying so. Two other people are concurrently being prosecuted in relation to the same event. Palmer has not been "cleared" of anything, he simply has not been charged. Wikipedia needs to maintain that distinction. In spite of this, Palmer is at the centre of a major political and media event that led one country to ban that hunting format and another to suspend it, as well as at least one airline to change its trophy carrying policy. In the process, the phrase "Walter Palmer" accumulated over 1.5 million Google hits, at current count, including several RS that refer to the black bear fine in the context of the Cecil hunt. Samsara 23:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, no. One minister made a statement that Palmer broke the law and that they were pursuing extradition. That one minister was incorrect. He did not break the law and so they were not pursuing extradition. That one minister is obviously not the government of Zimbabwe if they don't even know whether charges were warranted. It's a BLP violation to state it in WP's voice that Zimbabwe believed a crime had been committed and that Zimbabwe was pursuing extradition for that crime. It's false and a BLP violation. In the section, where it's an attributed quote, I left it alone. Where it's in WP's voice, I removed it. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article is not sourced, and seems a bit fishy and as if the subject themselves wrote it. Particularly the second half of the "Secretary of the Army" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.38.196 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC+9)

Carlos Cadona, stage name 6025, is the former guitarist for well known punk band the Dead Kennedys. According to his wikipedia article he suffers from schizophrenia, his mother looks after his finances and he is working on becoming the "Captain Beefheart of of gospel music". The sources given there are deadkennedys.com (official website of what remains of the band), alternativetentacles.com (former record label of the band, closely associated with former member Jello Biafra), and darkside.ru, a Russian rock music e-zine. None of these strike me as being sufficiently reliable for material which alludes to someone's mental health. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Copy edited the article extensively. I had to trim it significantly due to lack of sources and unencyclopaedic language. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing here somewhat on behalf of another editor who tried to create List of incidents of vigilantism against sex offenders from a boylover wiki. It was speedied as a copyright infringement and I didn't see where they had their content licenced as fair use. If anyone wants to go through that site and look for it, feel free.

Aside from that, I was wondering if this would qualify for an article even if it was re-written. I'm worried that this could violate WP:BLP, at least on behalf of the people who performed the vigilantism, and I'm also worried about notability. I generally don't like creating a list article for things that would not have individual notability in and of themselves. From what I could see, none of the people listed in the now deleted article had pages or would pass WP:NCRIME individually. Also, while the page was named sex offenders, the people listed as being attacked or killed were all convicted for sex crimes against children. While pedophiles (or in one case, a hebephile) can be sex offenders, not all sex offenders are pedophiles or hebephiles. That's mostly an aside, though.

My take on this is that a list page would be unwarranted unless the individual cases were notable enough for inclusion. I do think that there is merit in having an article about vigilantism against pedophiles and sex offenders in general, but I don't know that individually listing people who attacked or killed convicted is really a good idea. I was wondering what you guys thought. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some high profile vigilante cases involve attacks on people who are not (or not yet) convicted sex offenders, or attacks on previously convicted offenders who the vigilantes suspect of a new crime, which is a BLP minefield. Example. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.boywiki.org/en/BoyWiki:Copyrights Incidintz (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, not many people are going to visit a 'boywiki', but having just looked at that URL I can tell everyone it says it's a compatible GNU FDL v1.2. To be a valid list it would really need to list articles about the incidents, as opposed to this which seemed to be a somewhat indiscriminate list of news items. Somewhere like Anti-pedophile activism, or an non-list article about the narrower phenomenon, might be a better place for notable non-article items. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for checking that out. I admit that I didn't spend but so long on the site, partially because I was at work and well... that's not the greatest site to be seen perusing at any job location. I don't have an issue with listing some notable cases at the activism page, although I think that there needs to be a devoted section to vigilantism or at least to tactics in general. I would have to say that it'd be best if we limited this to instances where the cases merited an article, just for BLP's sake. There have to be at least a few of those on here, although if the coverage is heavy enough it could probably warrant inclusion without an article. I'd like to say that inclusion in say, an academic text would be a good, strong indicator that something should be included as an example. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; you never know what kind of awkward conversations browsing that site at work might lead to. You might be surfing from wikilink to wikilink when your boss glances at your screen as they're walking by, does a double-take upon noticing the distinctive spiral triangle logo, and says, "Wow, you're a BoyWiki fan too?! What a coincidence!" Incidintz (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL, you almost made me choke on a graham cracker. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i think it is likely that the subject has been covered in enough detail by enough very reliable sources that an article could be written- it has been the premise of several "ripped from the headlines" criminal investigation drama shows. but, boywiki would be near the LAST place we would go for information even if it is completely appropriately licensed. the BLP minefield on all sides would require permanent protection levels . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information in this pageMushtaq Omar Uddin is somewhat libellous and incorrect; and is causing damages to the living persons career and personal life. The living person does not want to have a wikipedia page with his personal information made public. The owner of the page was contacted and the request to delete it- ignored. Can you please advise how this issue can be resolved. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amrak15: The information, such as date of birth, is cited to a book. I don't have a copy of the book to say for sure whether it's valid or not. However, you'll need a better reason than "The living person does not want to have a wikipedia page" to remove it: as a general rule, we don't remove pages or content just on the subject's request.

Now, if you see uncited information, that's different: that can (and arguably should) be removed per WP:BLP. The issue I have is that you've removed cited information, and you removed the external links section of the article wholesale.

Finally, since you indicate that you know what Uddin wants in respect to the article, it suggests that you have a conflict of interest with him, which may limit how much you should edit his article and may also obligate you to make certain disclosures, if you have that nature of conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user you contacted, NottNott (talk · contribs), does not "own" the page (no one user does), and does not have the ability to delete the page themself. You may wish to review WP:DELETION to see the processes that are available for you to request deletion (although I suspect that in this case, deletion will be an uphill battle.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amrak15: Upon getting a notification from Nat Gertler (thanks!) I've revised the changes made to the article to fit better with policies such as WP:SUBJECT and WP:NPOV, as well as general style improvements. As Nat Gertler said, I don't own the page as anyone can edit it. With that said, have a look and see what you think. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 17:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 176.35.162.157 has repeatedly posted unsubstantiated/unsourced contentious material to the BLP article on Peter Thornley, including one edit implying links between the subject and notorious sexual abuser Jimmy Saville. 2.29.250.131 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts named living persons. A discussion about including a contentious claim (that is, a claim that the murder was done "for hire") was just closed as "no consensus" on the article talk page. As I understand it, lack of a consensus for inclusion of a contentious claim impacting living persons defaults to "exclusion of the claim" however another closer states that the default for a contentious claim affecting living persons is "inclusion". further opinions sought from outsiders. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no consensus for the inclusion of a contentious claim, then it cannot be included. --ℕ ℱ 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I've just signed up for this tonight. I'm trying to clean up a few of my family tree pages (Charles Amos), (Troy Amos-Ross), (Egerton Marcus), and create a page for myself (Michael A. Amos), and my father "Christoper D. Amos."

Everything on here is pretty easy, the only hard thing is citing the references for my personal page. The rest of my family is already all set up. Please help. If you google me, you can verify most of everything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamos1983 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's highly, highly discouraged for people to write an article about themselves on Wikipedia, as it's easy for people to insert non-neutral material without realizing it and see more notability than there might actually be per Wikipedia's guidelines. Notability isn't inherited and I need to stress that Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com, so there's no need to list every family member that has accomplished something, especially as not all accomplishments are notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I also need to mention that this can be seen as self-promotion on your part, since one of your main reasons for being here seems to center predominantly about writing about yourself and ensuring that the articles for family members includes a mention of you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Politkovskaya‎‎, a critic of Vladimir Putin, was murdered on October 7, 2006.

Many other birthdays and world events are connected with October 7, but the one thing that a number of editors want to make note of in the article on Politkovskaya is that October 7 is the birthday of Vladimir Putin. This is not a fact that is in dispute, the murder occurred on the birthday of Vladimir Putin. However, many people have speculated that there's some kind of connection between the murders and Putin's birthday, and an impressive list of sources has been accumulated which show, without any doubt, that that theory, those speculations, do indeed exist.

What hasn't been presented is anything beyond speculation and conspiracy theorizing. There are no sources presented which actually provide any evidence of a causal connection between the murder and Putin, or, even, a correlation between the murders and it being Putin's birthday. Absent such evidence, including in the article the information that the murder took place on Putin's birthday is not an innocent addition, it carries with it the clear implication of some sort of connection between Putin and the murder or the killers.

It seems to me that such an implication is a clear violation of the BLP policy, because although the speculation and conjecture is well-sourced, the obvious implication is not sourced at all: there is no evidence, as of yet, from a reliable source which purports to show that there is a relationship between Putin's birthday and the murder of one of his critics. If and when such information comes to light, then it can be reported on, but until that time, including mention of Putin's birthday in the article should be considered to be a BLP violation.

In a previous discussion about this issue @Swarm: said about it

I agree that this is a very well-grounded BLP concern. Thinly-veiled innuendo such as this that obviously implicates Putin in a murder of one of his opponents is entirely non-neutral and out of line with BLP. If reliable sources directly discuss his connection, there's nothing wrong with including it, but the contested phrase is horribly passive-aggressive innuendo that implies much more than is written, and that's not appropriate for a neutral article. [3]

Obviously, "thinly-veiled innuendo" shouldn't be in any Wikipedia arricle, let alone be connected to a living person, even Putin. BMK (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, as you say, a sizeable number of sources make a connection between the date of the murder and the birthday of Putin, there's no problem in our article noting this. Adhering to BLP requires that contentious material be well sourced; that is obviously the case here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. More than 30 reliable, high quality sources, including academic ones, which make the connection have been provided [4]. In effect, almost every source which discusses this topic mentions this fact. We cannot just pretend that sources don't say what they actually say. That is effectively misrepresenting the sources. This is not a BLP issue. Volunteer Marek  05:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a violation. Wikipedia reflects what sources say. See VM above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to a BLP violation. The number of strong reliable and verifiable sources that make the connection between the murder and Putin's birthday is overwhelming. The first two pages of results from this Google search using the words "'Anna Politkovskaya' murdered Putin's birthday" turn up sources including:

1. The New York Times ("And then there was the fact that Politkovskaya was killed on Oct. 7, the birthday of President Vladimir Putin of Russia.")
2. The Independent ("The most obvious led to the Kremlin, if not to President Putin himself; that 7 October is his birthday fuelled speculation about someone perhaps offering a macabre present.")
3. Daily Mail ("Politkovskaya, an investigative reporter who uncovered state corruption and rights abuses, especially in Chechnya, died at the age of 48 on October 7, 2006, President Vladimir Putin's 54th birthday.")
4. Reuters ("Politkovskaya, 48, was shot twice in the chest, once in the shoulder and once in the head as she returned to her Moscow home in broad daylight on October 7, 2006. The fifth anniversary of her death on Friday coincides with Putin's 59th birthday.")
5. The New Yorker ("Anna Politkovskaya was murdered as she came home with some groceries on a Saturday afternoon, October 7, 2006, Vladimir Putin’s birthday.")
6. The Guardian ("For many, the fact that Politkovskaya was assassinated on Putin's birthday, and two days after Kadyrov's 30th birthday celebrations, raised suspicions that a henchman of one or both had served up the contract hit as an unasked-for present.")
7. The Economist ("It may be a chilling coincidence that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, but her friends and supporters are in little doubt that her dogged, gloomy reporting of the sinister turn Russia has taken under what she called his “bloody” leadership was what led to her body being dumped in the lift of her Moscow apartment block.")
8. The KGB's Poison Factory ("The next signature murder was on 7 October 2006 when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin's birthday.")
9. Transformations in Central Europe between 1989 and 2012 ("On the day of the second Katyn we may also recall the death of Anna Politkovskaya, “coincidentally” murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, October 7, 2006.")

Not one of these authors provides proof of a causal connection between the murder of Politkovskaya and Putin's birthday; but they do report the connection, and it should be included in the article. The evidence demanded by BMK would be needed in a court of law to charge and try Mr. Putin for the murder, but the sources reporting the connection -- in the article and available elsewhere -- certainly meet the Wikipedia standard, despite the specious BLP claims. Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Connected contributor (paid)}} should only be used on talk pages. I am a paid contributor for Kathleen Conway's Wiki page. I have been paid to upload this article by Hop Online.